Introduction by GA: in the following piece, Deliberation writer Ariadna Theokopoulos elaborates on Stanley Heller's review of The Wandering Who. Heller, who have been chasing my supporters for more than awhile, defines himself as 'a Jew who speaks out'. I guess that Heller owns a copy of a book that is basically written about him and his ilk. He should know that according to The Wandering Who he should redfine himself as ‘a 3rd Category Jew who speaks out.’
I realised a few days ago that no one reposted Heller’s review, not even his tribal collaborators, so I asked him for a permission to publish his review on my site. I thought that if the ‘Jew’ wants to ‘speak out’ he may as well want to be heard. I thought that Heller’s approach to my book proves each and every point I raise in The Wandering Who. Heller kept silent, he never replied to my request. He probably grasped that he stepped into a trap. He was obviously correct.
Young Writers Corner
by Ariadna Theokopoulos
source: http://www.deliberation.info/young-writers-corner/
Recently I came across an interesting review of The Wandering Who, the book by Gilad Atzmon that has reached so far and wide that it might be called The Wandering Book.
The review is by one Stanley Heller. In the interest of full disclosure I will note that I do not know Heller, never heard of him before and never read anything by him, so any perception of bias in his favor on my part is unfounded. I did google his name and found a Stanley Heller who had signed an article on the site of a non-profit organization, WESPAC, a foundation that “connects the people of Westchester with a progressive agenda for the planet and its peoples.” Very impressive. The article by this Heller, called Time to Play Hardball, talks about activism on behalf of the Palestinian solidarity movement and recommends, among other meritorious actions, wearing a kuffiyeh because Jews also wore a yellow star. I decided this couldn’t be the same person as the more serious-minded reviewer.
I have read a few reviews of the The Wandering Who before, some by highly reputable scholars, intellectuals, and human rights activists, but even though they were all enthusiastic, they were also almost pedantically factual, and none struck me as so personally and emotionally engaged as this most sincere review. In fact I would say that this very quality, in excess, is also its weakness. The review suffers from a surfeit of sincerity.
Heller starts by confessing candidly that he hates the author, refused to read the book but wished very much to refute it. So he had to leaf through it to obtain some quotes to use. I put this down to my guess that Heller is a young and inexperienced writer or else he would not give away his predetermined conclusion in the first few lines.
Luckily this is compensated by another confession: Heller shares with the reader his ambition, which boils down to showing up those prominent academics and reputable human rights advocates for the fools they are to have been “mysteriously” bamboozled into praising the book. Say what you will, but this kind of boundless self-confidence – one Stanley Heller demolishing Baroud, Boyle, Cook, Falk, Mearsheimer, Mezevinsky, Petras, Qumsieh, and others like them – has a touching quality about it. It is like a 6th grader announcing that E = mc2 is wrong and he will prove it to you. You almost want to root for the underpuppy. His total self-confidence (detractors, not I, would call it chutzpah) makes you want to read on.
The review is made up of quotes lifted from the book in the sequential order of chapters and it is a minor weakness of élan that Heller’s intended refutations are less than substantial, like “Huh?” “Ridiculous,” “Pitiful,” “What rubbish!” or “sludge.”
Click to read more ...
Sunday, July 15, 2012 at 5:06PM 
